Bailiffs

Baroness Hanham: My Honourable Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The coalition agreement committed the coalition Government to provide more protection against aggressive bailiffs and unreasonable charges. Further to this, last year, Ministers pledged to review the guidance given to local authorities on the use of bailiffs to collect council tax.
	This was in light of unacceptable practices by some local authorities; poor advice from the old Office of the Deputy Prime Minister guidance; and the failure of the last Administration to deliver on their 2009 pledge to publish new guidance on good collection practice.
	My department has published new guidance to local authorities: Council Tax: Guidance to Local Councils on Good Practice in the Collection of Council Tax Arrears. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House and is available on my department’s website at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/council-tax. It replaces the previous Office of the Deputy Prime Minister guidance.
	Councils will rightly want to ensure they collect council tax as far as possible, as every penny that is unpaid means higher bills for law-abiding citizens. But this does not mean that shady or aggressive practices are acceptable.
	The new guidance directly tackles such issues as “phantom visits”, excessive charges and kickbacks from bailiffs to local authorities. Contracts should not involve rewards or penalties which incentivise the use of bailiffs where it would not otherwise be justified.
	It also provides clear guidance on:
	bailiffs providing the debtor with a contact number should they wish to speak to the billing authority;local councillors remaining responsible for the action of bailiffs they have contracted;in-house bailiffs having to explicitly state that they are part of the local authority;councils publishing their standard scale of fees on their website, to allow public scrutiny and highlight unreasonable practices; andactively encouraging councils to sign up to the Citizens Advice Bureau good practice protocol.
	This Statement delivers on the commitment made by Ministers (12 January, Official Report, col. 385W) to report back to the House. It also delivers on the commitment made to the hon. Member for Harrow
	East (15 September 2011, Official Report , col. 1206) to review the unacceptable practices in the London Borough of Harrow.

EU: Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Lord De Mauley: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Owen Paterson) has today made the following statement.
	The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Monday 24 and Tuesday 25 June in Luxembourg. I will be representing the UK, accompanied by Richard Lochhead MSP, Alun Davies AM and Michelle O’Neill MLA.
	Monday and Tuesday will concentrate on the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform package. There are no fishery items scheduled for this council.
	Council negotiations will centre on the four regulations that make up the CAP reform package. The Irish presidency will be looking to obtain a full political agreement on the CAP reform package during this council.

EU: Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Earl Howe: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Anna Soubry) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will meet on 20-21 June in Luxembourg. The health and consumer affairs part of the council will be taken on 21 June.
	The main agenda items will be the following legislative proposals:
	- the tobacco products directive (it is expected that the presidency will aim to agree a general approach);- clinical trials regulation (where the presidency will report progress on negotiations) - medical devices regulations (where the presidency will report progress on negotiations)
	Under any other business, the presidency is likely to provide information on the serious cross border threats decision and matters relating to the import of active pharmaceutical ingredients in accordance with the falsified medicines directive; the transparency directive; and the EU drugs action plan.
	The Lithuanian delegation will also give information on the priorities for its forthcoming presidency, which will run from July until December 2013.

EU: Telecommunications Council

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My honourable friend, the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries (Ed Vaizey MP) has made the following Statement:
	The Telecommunications Council took place in Luxemburg on 6th June 2013. I represented the UK at this council.
	The first item was a full “tour de table” debate guided by questions from the presidency on the digital agenda for Europe—the role of the telecommunications and ICT sectors. The commissioner for the digital agenda, Vice-President Kroes is planning to launch an initiative with the aim of achieving the goal of a further integrated European telecoms single market. It forms part of the goal to achieve a pan-European digital single market by 2015; though the telecoms single market measures may have a longer timescale before realisation.
	This debate focused on two questions: garnering member states’ views on how to realise the ambition of a more integrated telecoms single market and views on further pan-European spectrum harmonisation. The commissioner for the digital agenda opened the debate by urging member states to see the digital agenda as a vehicle for increasing growth and jobs, particularly for young people. She went on to say that the telecoms sector is too fragmented across member states and there are too many barriers that prevent cross border trade in digital goods and services.
	My intervention noted that the UK welcomed the idea of a further integrated single market in telecoms in principle, including the proposal for a telecoms passport which would allow telecoms providers the ability to be able to operate in any Member State, along similar lines to the single European banking licence. However, I also suggested that that this proposal should not allow telecom companies the ability to base themselves in a member state with a weak regulator. I also stated that any proposals will need to strike the right balance between allowing consolidation in the telecoms market but still ensuring that there is vibrant competition.
	On spectrum, I said that the UK had just carried out a successful spectrum auction and we would be like to work together to develop guidelines that would produce a more joined up approach towards spectrum management across the EU, but we would be cautious about uniform rules at European level.
	The majority of member states broadly supported the principle of a single telecoms market. However, Germany, Belgium and Spain expressed scepticism on
	the need for any further telecoms regulation. Many member states also emphasized that one of the outcomes of these proposals should be that broadband is available to all citizens regardless of where they live in the EU. On spectrum, there was consensus among member states that there should no changes that would reduce member states’ abilities to make their own decisions to how spectrum is allocated.
	The next item was a progress report from the presidency, followed by an orientation debate on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the council concerning measures to ensure a high level of network and information security across the Union. (First reading – EM6342/13) My intervention supported the high level principles of the strategy but expressed concern that the current proposal was too prescriptive. I also said that voluntary data sharing arrangements were very valuable and should not be threatened by mandatory reporting requirements. Finland, France, Sweden and Germany also shared my view that the regulation was too prescriptive. However, most member states believed that legislation was necessary but only in respect of sectors that were considered “critical” national infrastructure.
	The presidency then provided a progress report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market (First reading EM10977/12) There was not a major debate on this item and I did not intervene.
	The council then looked at two proposals under the “banner” of digital infrastructure and services. The first item was the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council on guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks and repealing Decision No. 1336/97/EC (First reading EM16006/11). The second item was a progress report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council on measures to reduce the costs of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks (First reading EM7999/13). The council and Commission noted both these items without any comment.
	There then followed a progress report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the council on the accessibility of public sector bodies’ websites. (First reading EM17344/12) The council and Commission noted this report without any comment.
	Any Other Business
	Finally, the Lithuanian delegation informed the council of its priorities for its forthcoming presidency. I did not intervene on this item.